Karnataka High Court
Shri Sathyanarayana vs Shri Sathyanarayana M R on 11 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
R
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.22/2019
C/W.
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.21/2019
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.23/2019
IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.22/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MAHESH
S/O LATE GANAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
MAHESH FOOT WEAR
J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R.,
S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CLOTH MERCHANT
J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE - [THROUGH V.C])
2
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC.RENT
REV.10001/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGAR)
ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.3/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR, DISMISSING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF KARNATAKA
RENT ACT, 1999.
IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.21/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O EASHWARA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT SRINIDHI LOTTERY CENTRE
BEEDA SHOP, J.C.ROAD
SAGARA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R.,
S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CLOTH MERCHANT
J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - [THROUGH V.C])
3
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC.RENT
REV.10002/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGAR),
ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.1/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT,
1999.
IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.23/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VATHSALA BAI
W/O DAMODARA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O 3RD CROSS, AZAD ROAD,
SAGARA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R.,
S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CLOTH MERCHANT
J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
2. SHRI. JALEEL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
COCONUT MERCHANT,
R/O J.C. ROAD, SAGAR TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
... RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - [THROUGH V.C];
R2 - IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC.
RENT. REV. NO.10003/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA [SITTING AT
SAGAR], ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.2/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.07.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the learned counsel for the respondent/s in all the
petitions. These petitions are filed challenging the order
passed by the Rent Revision Court in HRC.Rent.Rev.No.
10001/2018, HRC.Rent.Rev.No.10002/2018 and
HRC.Rent.Rev.No.10003/2018 allowing the Rent Revision
Petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act,
1999 directing the tenants/petitioners to quit and vacate
5
the schedule property and hand over the possession in
favour of the petitioner within 3 months and also directing
to pay the damages of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date
of petition till handing over the possession in favour of the
respondent in the revision petitions.
2. The factual matrix of case of the landlord while
filing the eviction petition, it is contented that the
respondent is the owner of the petition schedule property
and by way of gift, property devolves upon the respondent
and the gift deed was executed by father. The premises
mentioned in all the petitions is measuring 7 ft x 9 ft and
4 ft x 5 ft and the rate of rent is Rs.10/- per month. The
respondent is running the foot wear shop in the premises.
In H.R.C.No.2/2015, it is contended that original tenant
died that is husband of the respondent and now the
respondent No.1 has sublet the premises to respondent
No.2 on monthly rent of Rs.100/- who is running a coconut
selling shop. It is also the case of petitioner in all the
6
petitions that the petitioner wanted to build a shopping
complex for his business in the above said property
including the schedule property and he has already
obtained license by submitting the plan and estimate and
petitioner is required the schedule premises for his bonafide
use and occupation. The counsel also contend that legal
notice was issued and the same was served and reply
notice was given which clearly discloses that not willing to
hand over the vacant possession and also contend that in
view of termination of tenancy, the respondent is liable to
pay damages for their illegal possession at Rs.1,000/-per
month and also contended that respondents have not paid
the rent in spite of the demand and issuance of notice. The
tenants appeared and filed the written statement
contending that the vacant land was given and petition
itself is not maintainable and also contended that petitioner
is not the owner of the schedule premises and
Sri.Ramachandra purchased the schedule premises out of
7
the joint family nucleus. The site in question is the joint
family property and the alleged gift deed is void.
3. It is also contended that entire site belongs to
one Kaikini Datta Bhatta and it was a vacant site measuring
22 ft x 52 ft with a common passage about 4 feet on its
northern side to support this site, out of this site, the
respective tenants took the northern portion on a monthly
rent of Rs.10/- for installing wooden cloth shop and after
the death of the original tenant, the respondent is running a
foot wear shop and also contend that there were talks to
purchase the premises between the respondent and original
owner Kaikini Datta Bhatta, but the father of the petitioner
had purchased the premises behind the back of this
respondent. It is also contented that earlier also HRC
petition was filed and same was allowed and hence
challenged in HRC.RP and the same was allowed and the
same was questioned before this Court and in HRRP also,
confirmed the order of the District Court.
8
4. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged in HRC No.3/2015, the original owner examined
himself as P.W.1 and got marked document at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.5 and respondent also examined himself as R.W.1 and
got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.12. In HRC.No.1/2015, landlord
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9
and respondent/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and got
marked Ex.D.1. In H.R.C.No.2/2015, landlord examined
himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The
respondent did not choose to examine any of the witness
and original tenant was no more and wife was brought as
the respondent and also impleaded the sub-lessee No.1 as
respondent No.2.
5. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and
documentary evidence in all the cases answered the point
Nos. 1 to 3 as affirmative, but comes to the conclusion that
petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought in the
petition referring the judgment of this Court reported in ILR
9
2005 KAR 4817 in case of Chennachari and others V/s
S.Saroja and others, at paragraph No.23, the Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that, this case do not dispute that
father of the respondent has put up the shop on a
temporary basis on the area let out to him by the earlier
owners. It is also not disputed that earlier suit property
belongs to Kaikini Datta Bhatta and from him, the father of
the petitioner purchased the schedule property premises
and later the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed in
favour of the petitioner, ultimately what remains is the
father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant to a
vacant site and not to a commercial shop and father of the
respondent has put up the shop over the area on which he
was inducted as a tenant. It is held in the above judgment
that when there is no plinth area, there is no building. In
this case, only a vacant land was offered to the father of
the respondent as such, going by the above judgment
referred by the respondent, Court holds that petition is not
10
maintainable, only given vacant land and he has put up the
structure over the same. Hence, the landlord questioned
the order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases before
the Rent Revision Court. The common grounds urged in all
the revision petitions.
6. The District Court in the revision petition, having
considered the grounds which have been urged, taken note
of the Trial Court has not read Section 2(3)(g) of Karnataka
Rent Act,1999 which reads any premises used for non-
residential premises, but excluding premises having a plinth
area of not exceeding 14 square meters and also the Trial
Court not read Section 3(h)(l)(ii) premises means any land
not used for agriculture purpose and also Section 3(n)
which reads tenants any person by whom on whose account
or behalf of rent of any premises. The Trial Court erred in
holding that judgment is applicable on the facts of the case
and also the revision Court relied upon the judgment
reported in 2010 (2) Kar LJ 102 in case of
11
Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh
Murthy and having taken note of principles laid down in the
judgment and having considered the very requirement of
the land lord and also taking note of the above referred
provisions and comes to the conclusion that when the Trial
Court given finding on all the points and answered the point
Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, but committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that petition is not maintainable
and set-aside the said finding and also ordered to pay the
damages of Rs.1,000/- directing all the tenants to pay the
damages.
7. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the order
passed by the Rent Revision Court, these revision petitions
are filed before this Court. The main contention raised in all
the petitions is that the order passed by the District Judge
is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law and the same
is opposed to the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
and also contend that there is no question of terminating
12
the tenancy under the Rent Act. After termination of the
lease, the tenant becomes the statutory tenant under the
Rent Act. It is also contended that under the Rent Act, it is
the rent controller (delegated power to the Civil Judge) the
Civil Judge sitting in a capacity of authority under the Rent
Act, terminated the tenancy comes under Section 106 of
the T.P Act and only in such case, after termination of the
tenancy, the tenant becomes a trespasser and only in civil
suit, rent by way of damages after termination of tenancy
arises, but not under the Rent Act.
8. The counsel also contended that in case Section
27(2)(r) of the Rent Act is proved, the tenant is liable for
eviction and not a trespasser, the District Judge committed
an error in awarding damages of Rs.1,000/- and also
contend that District Judge committed an error when the
petitioner is brought under Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act,
the Court cannot treat it as an application under Section 40
13
of Rent Act. Hence, impugned order passed by the Rent
Revision Court is liable to be set-aside.
9. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported
in ILR 2000 KAR 565 in case of Ramesh P.Seth V/S
M.S.Krishna Murthy and Another referring this judgment
the counsel would contend that thereafter the possession of
the tenant does not become unlawful even after the
determination of lease and hence such tenant paying
damages for use and occupation of the premises does not
arise so all other rights and obligations and liabilities
continue to operate under the Rent Control Act. Landlord
can maintain a suit for ejectment and rent in the Court of
small causes as the question of tenant paying damages
does not arise.
10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment
reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3309 in case of Sarojamma
W/o Narasiah V/s K.M.Venkatesh and brought to notice
of this Court when the premises totally measuring more
14
than 14 square meter, suit for ejectment and damages and
the premises measures more than 14 square meter and
monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- held that premises measures
more than 14 square meters and being outside the purview
of the Rent Act, small cause Court could not have taken
cognizance and as such, the judgment under provision is
not sustainable and ordered to return the plaint after
remitting the matter. The counsel referring these two
judgments would contend that petition itself is not
maintainable and also contend that question of damages
does not arise.
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the
measurement of the premises it is pleaded in all the petition
that 7 ft x 9 ft, 4ft x 5 ft and 4ft x 5ft and rate of rent is in
respect of two premises Rs.10/- per month and Rs.8/- in
other premises. The counsel would vehemently contend
that the tenants have not paid the rent from 1996. The
15
counsel also would vehemently contend that in all the cases
documents are placed before the Court that is license, plan
and no challenge with regard to the capacity to build a
building and in all the petitions specifically pleaded that
premises is required for bonafide use and occupation of the
landlord and the same is admitted and even admitted in the
cross examination of tenant that license is obtained and
plan also obtained. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that though petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r)
and when there is no dispute with regard to the premises is
required and the same cannot be questioned and license
and plan also obtained and having sufficient fund to
reconstruct the building.
12. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported
in 2009 Legal Eagle (KAR) 1171 in case of
Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh
Murthy, the counsel referring this judgment would contend
that in this judgment, this Court taken note of applicability
16
of the Rent Act and also discussed regarding invoking
Section 40 of the Act seeking possession of the scheduled
premises and also would contend that this Court in detail
discussed Section 40 of the Karnataka Rent Act as well as
similar Section 24 of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958, special
provision regarding vacant building sites and also contend
that the word premises under the Karnataka Act is defined
under Section 3(i) and having considered the same, counsel
brought to notice of this Court discussions made in
paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the judgment and also brought
to notice of paragraph No.30 of the Judgment wherein
discussed to note that Section 40 begins with a non-
obstante clause and also Section 27 and 40 are mutually
exclusive and also discussed Section 21(1)(i) and (m) of
the 1961 Act, and also the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
Section 40 is the only provision available for a petitioner to
seek possession of the premises comprising of vacant land.
Therefore, both conditions mentioned in Section 40 namely
17
the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to commence
the work and that the severance of the vacant land from
the rest of the premises will not cause any undue hardship
to the respondent are not mandatory conditions, but the
second condition would be applicable depending upon the
need of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of
the case. The counsel referring this paragraph No.30 would
vehemently contend that in the present case on hand, the
principles laid down in the judgment are aptly applicable to
the case on hand. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that the very same judgment was considered by
the District Court and extracted paragraph Nos.22 to 26
and discussion was made and allowed the revision petitions.
Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
13. Having heard the revision petitioner's counsel
and the learned counsel for the respondent/s and
considering the material on record, the points that would
arise for consideration of this Court are:
18
1) Whether Rent Revision Court committed an
error in allowing the petition filed under
Section 27(2)(r) of Rent Act by the
Landlord?
2) Whether the Rent Revision Court committed
an error in awarding damages of Rs.1,000/-
per month in respect of the premises which
is in question?
3) What Order?
Point No.1:
14. Having heard the respective counsel and also the
contents of the petition, it is the case of the landlord that
property was purchased by their father Ramachandra from
Kaikini Datta Bhatta and it was a vacant site measuring
22 ft x 52 ft with a common passage about 4 ft on its
northern side. It is also important to note that the said
Ramachandra gifted the property in favour of the petitioner
who becomes the owner. No doubt it is disputed that
Ramachandra had purchased the property from a joint
19
nucleus and Ramachandra was the manager of his branch
consisting of his two sons and daughters and site in
question is a joint family property and alleged gift deed is
void. The tenant cannot dispute the nature of the property
and cannot plead on behalf of the other family members
that it is a joint family property and also even cannot
question the gift deed and only family members can
question the same and the status of tenant is only a tenant
and the said contention cannot be accepted. However, the
tenants also admits that originally property belongs to one
Kaikini Datta Bhatta and also not disputes the fact that
father of the petitioner had purchased the same in the year
1979 and also it is not in dispute that gift deed is also
executed in favour of the petitioner and the same is also
not disputed.
15. It is also important to note that petition is filed
under Section 27(2)(r) of Rent Act. The Court while
considering the petition comes to the conclusion that
20
referring the judgment ILR 2005 KAR 4817 that it is only a
vacant land was offered to the father of the respondent and
comes to the conclusion that the petition is not
maintainable. But, the fact is that though it was a vacant
land, it was given by the original owner Kaikini Datta
Bhatta. But, the fact is that property was purchased by the
father of the petitioner and continued to pay the rent to the
father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- and
Rs.8/- respectively.
16. It is also important to note that when the
petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r), it is admitted by the
tenants in two petitions that plan was obtained and license
was taken and possession was sought for the purpose of
construction. It is also important to note that petitioner has
sought for the petition for the construction of the
commercial complex since he is running the cloth business
and the same is also admitted by the tenants and not
disputed the same. No doubt in other case the tenants have
21
not challenged the requirement and even not lead any
evidence also and specifically pleaded that premise was
subletted to the 2nd respondent and the tenants did not
choose to lead any evidence and contest the matter. It is
rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlord that Ex.P.3 is a license and Ex.P.5 is a
plan and with regard to the capacity is concerned that there
was no any challenge and requirement is proved and also
made all efforts to put up the commercial complex.
17. Now, the question before this Court is in view of
main contention of the petitioner that it was only a vacant
land and constructed the shop and Trial Court rightly
dismissed petition, but the Revision Court committed an
error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in a case of
Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh
Murthy, it has to be noted that the said petition was filed
under Section 40 of Rent Act and the same is a special
provision regarding vacant building sites. The said provision
22
is an additional right granted to the petitioner to seek
possession of vacant land and not withstanding any such
right, a petitioner may have under Section 27 of the Act
which deals with eviction of a respondent. It is very clear in
paragraph No.30 of the judgment that though discussed in
detail in paragraph Nos.23 to 26, this Court held that
Section 40 begins with a non-obstante clause, the Court
also taken note of Section 21 of old Act as well as New
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also the present Section 27
and 40 and held that both are mutually exclusive in the
absence of old Act and new Act and held that Section 40 is
the only provision available for a petitioner to seek
possession of the premises comprising of vacant land.
Therefore, both the conditions mentioned in Section 40
namely the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to
commence the work under the severance of the vacant land
from the rest of the premises will not cause any undue
hardship to the respondent are not mandatory conditions,
23
but the second condition would be applicable depending
upon the need of the petitioner and the facts and
circumstances of the case. But, in the case on hand,
already this Court has comes to a conclusion that there was
a need and also made all preparedness for obtaining license
as well as the plan and the same is also admitted and when
such being the case, even though petition is filed under
Section 27(2)(r) and the judgment is in respect of Section
40 is concerned, both the provisions of Section 27 as well
as Section 40 also discussed in the judgment.
18. It is important to note that the Revision Court
also taken note of the fact that the discussion made in the
judgment particularly with regard to Section 2(3)(g) of the
Rent Act which reads as any premises used for non
residential premises, but excluding the premises having a
plinth area of not exceeding 14 square meters, but in the
case on hand, it has to be noted that originally vacant land
was given to the tenants and thereafter, tenants put up the
24
shop premises i.e., petty shop premises that is wooden
shops and also it has to be noted that the Trial Court
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that vacant
land was not comes within the meaning of Karnataka Rent
Act and the same is erroneous and the Revision Court also
taken note of Section 3(h)(I)(ii) premises means any land
not used for agriculture purpose and in the case on hand
when the land is used for non agriculture purpose and not
for agriculture purpose and also Section 3(n) of Rent Act is
very clear that tenants any person by whom on whose
account or behalf of rent of any premises. Having taken
note of the definition, comes to the conclusion that Trial
Court committed an error in relying upon judgment
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4817 and also taken note of the
discussion made in the judgment of Jayanthilal Chandulal
Kothari case reported in 2010 (2) Kar LJ 102 extracted
paragraph Nos.22 to 26 and also taken note of the
harmonious reading of Section 2(3)(g) with Section 3(i)
25
read with Section 3(n) and Section 40 of the Rent Act and
held that the empowerment of Section 2(3)(g) of the Act is
only in the context of building having a plinth area and not
in the context of Section 40 of the Act which deals with
vacant land. The judgment which was relied upon by the
counsel appearing for the petitioner reported in ILR 2007
KAR 3309 is not applicable to the facts of the case on
hand. In the case on hand though counsel appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that area is more than
14 square and the same cannot be accepted and the
tenants also not disputes the fact that they are in
occupation only to the extent of 7 ft x 9 ft and 4 ft x 5ft
each in respect of two premises and though site vacant is
more than that the same cannot be a ground and they are
running the business in the small area which is less than
the definition under Section 2(3)(g) of 14 square.
19. It is important to note that, taking into note of
the Trial Court affirmed with regard to point Nos.1 to 3
26
holding that petitioner is the owner of the property and
respondent is the tenant and also petitioner required the
premises for the bonafide use and occupation having
considered the admission on the part of the tenant who
have categorically admitted that the landlord is doing the
business as well as obtained the plan and license but
committed an error in relying upon judgment of
Chennachari's case. Hence, I do not find any error
committed by the Revisional Court in coming to the
conclusion that petitioner is in need of premises under
Section 27(2)(r) for his bonafide use and occupation. No
doubt the counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the judgment which has been
relied upon pertains to Section 40 of the Karnataka Rent
Act and in the case on hand Section 27(2)(r) is concerned,
but the fact is that though premises was taken which was a
land and the same is not used for the agriculture purpose
and the same is used for the commercial purpose after
27
shops are constructed and not disputed the business run in
the shop premises. The fact that they are running the
business in the very same premises is not in dispute and
hence the very contention that the petition under Section
27(2)(r) is not maintainable cannot be accepted. Hence, I
answer the point No.1 as Negative.
Point No.2:
20. The main contention of the petitioner before this
Court is that awarding of damages is concerned, Revision
Court committed an error. The counsel appearing for the
petitioner also contend that judgment reported in ILR 2000
KAR 565 is applicable is very clear regarding damages is
concerned. No doubt the Revision Court awarded damages
of Rs.1,000/- per month. The counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlord also would contend that he is not going
to claim any damages and the tenants are enjoying the
premises by paying nominal amount of Rs.10/- from 1950
28
onwards and even not willing to vacate the premises and
also not paid the rent after 1996.
21. The counsel also would contend that he will not
press for the relief of awarding Rs.1,000/- as damages. In
view of the said submission of the counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlord, the issue does not arise for
consideration of this Court as he is not pressing the
damages as claimed in the petition and hence the point
No.2 is answered as affirmative in coming to the conclusion
that Rent Revision Court committed an error in awarding
damages of Rs.1,000/- per month.
Point No.3:
22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Revision Petitions are partly allowed.
29
ii) The damages awarded by the Rent
Revision Court is set-aside and petition
allowed under Section 27(2)(r) of
Karnataka Rent Act is confirmed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
[ad_1]
Source link